If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I hear so much of how bad it is or is going to be, yet, the ones that want to repeal the law, have not offered any alternatives. Other than keep it the way it was. We see how our system worked before this law was attempted. Give me some sound alternatives, not just pouting because the Dems got it through. I wonder how many here would have the same stance, had it been an idea pushed through by a Republican administration.
Gerry,
I have more belief in humanity than to think that the govt would deny treatment, especially since they are the ones that established it. We have just as much energy wealth as Canada, if we would just uncap the wells we have and let the oil flow here. I spent quite a bit of time in Canada this past summer for work. I spoke to many natives there, and didn't find one person that did not like the Canadian health care plan. Their taxes are higher, but they seemed fine with it, knowing that if they needed medical care, it was available. Close friend of mine up there spent 6 weeks in the hospital with a perforated stomach and never paid a dime. Doesn't sound too bad to me.

So give me a sound solution to the healthcare debacle we are experiencing. My employer encourages out of the box thinking. If an idea is presented and you object to the change, you need to be able to give a good reason not to at least give the change a fair try. Just saying no, with no alternatives, is highly frowned up.

Do any of the people wanting to repeal this law have any solid alternatives? I haven't heard any. Somebody please direct me where I can find an alternative to the law, other than going back to the "old way" of doing things.

.................................................. .................................................. ..................
I have more belief in humanity than to think that the govt would deny treatment, ..............................................
.................................................. ............................................

News flash....... they already deny treatment for some things. My eye doc tells me that the government has decided he can not operate in some cases till they say so. This is a lately decided on rule not a long standing rule.

charly

"To become competent in governing others, we must first learn to govern ourselves"
Waite Phillips

Do any of the people wanting to repeal this law have any solid alternatives? I haven't heard any. Somebody please direct me where I can find an alternative to the law, other than going back to the "old way" of doing things.

We have been looking for a better solution for the better part of my lifetime and no politician has came up with it. At this point we know that Obamacare is a giant step in the wrong direction and repealing it would be progress. Why wait for a "solid alternative", when we know that the old way it better than Obamacare? Remember this?

News flash....... they already deny treatment for some things. My eye doc tells me that the government has decided he can not operate in some cases till they say so. This is a lately decided on rule not a long standing rule.

So do private insurance plans. They make you jump through hoops to get any procedure approved. So what is the difference? Which obamacare plan do you have? Bronze, silver, gold?

Missed point again.............the more that government gets involved in our health care the less choice we and our doc have in what we can do.

I am missing something. let's look at a comparison. Old way: Insurance company dictates to patient and doctor what procedures the patient can have. They can also decline to sell you coverage based on a pre-existing condition.

Obamacare: Govt dictates to patient and doctor what procedures the patient can have. You cannot be denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition.
So what difference does it make who is dictating what procedures you can have? Both are telling you the same thing. The insurance company is acting the same way the govt is and you are fine with that. That makes about as much sense as a screen door in a submarine. Unless of course, you or someone close to you has a vested interest in the insurance industry.

Shinyhead, "coverage" is not the same as actual health care. For example, the people who have plans where their condition is covered, except the drugs to treat their condition are not covered. Oops?

Problem with O-care is that it revamped the whole system to fix a problem for 15%. The other 85% were happy with their system. Why not address the problem specifically? The most support was for caring for people with pre-existing conditions who actually wanted health care coverage.

When the govt started the risk pool for PEC that they ran out of money long before they had the # of such individuals signed up, even though the #s who signed up were far less than those expected to sign up. That proved them ignorant of the most elementary actuarial principles. Sick people are more expensive to care for. Insurance companies know that. Did the govt bother to ask the insurance companies for their actuarial information so that they could establish a sustainable program? Did the insurance companies tell govt that their proposal was going to sink, but govt never told us? Very possible based on the other misleading info that was promoted to pass the law.

Remember, the 15% uninsured was not ALL due to PECs. Some of the uninsured might be those not eligible for Medicaid, but still too poor for coverage. Another portion were people who simply didn't want it. How many might be homeless people? Drug addicts? Criminals wanting to stay below the radar?

If govt was so bad at handling just this one piece of the puzzle, how could we possibly trust them to get the rest of it right.

Medicaid is a good example of the lack of concern of govt. By making Medicaid payments as low as they are, many doctors & hospitals won't take Medicaid patients at all. Evidently, those providers feel they will go bankrupt trying to treat patients at such reduced compensation. The intention has been to reduce Medicare payments so they are closer to Medicaid. Then seniors will also have a problem finding a provider that will accept their coverage.

Will the govt have to force providers to provide service? In the UK the doctors are employees of the govt.

The rhetoric is that the govt "cares". We are finding out that is not always the case.

There are good humans and bad humans. Good humans outnumber the criminals fortunately. Some of those bad humans are in public service. We see examples of that regularly.

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.